Originally posted by Sam
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Indiana's governor signs bill allowing businesses to reject gay customers
Collapse
X
-
That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostFreedom for one may go up, but freedom for the other doesn't. Again, balancing freedom and equality causes contradictions. Someone loses freedom either way.
Of course balancing freedom and equality causes conflicts (not contradictions). That's only a problem in principle if one is dedicated to maximalist policies."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYes, as I wrote. The difference is the degree of freedom lost and the reason for which that freedom was lost. Losing the freedom to discriminate on the basis of class, race, gender, orientation, etc. as a condition of becoming a public accommodation is a trade-off. Losing the ability to fully participate in society because others don't like the fact that you happen to be black or gay is not a trade-off.
Of course balancing freedom and equality causes conflicts (not contradictions). That's only a problem in principle if one is dedicated to maximalist policies.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostYes. Because that "force" of anti-discrimination law allows for a more perfect freedom than the discrimination it prohibits.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostYou're framing this in such prejudicial terms that it makes me wonder how much attention you've paid to the people debating the other side.
I don't see what was prejudicial in my framing."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostWhat was prejudicial in that post? That the decision to run a business as a public accommodation is conditioned upon following anti-discrimination laws? That discrimination based on race, gender, or orientation is not, in fact, the effect of a consumer's decision but on an inherent trait?
I don't see what was prejudicial in my framing.
Anyway, I probably shouldn't have commented, as I think the whole discussion is a waste of time.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostThat we're supporting a freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, orientation rather than a simple freedom of association.
Anyway, I probably shouldn't have commented, as I think the whole discussion is a waste of time.
I support a freedom of speech, for example, that allows for flag-burning. I don't support flag-burning itself but I necessarily support one's freedom to burn the flag.
That's not using prejudicial language, it's just being frank."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostWell, yes ... if you're supporting a "simple freedom of association" that allows discrimination on the basis of race, gender or orientation then, by necessity, you're supporting a freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or orientation. You may not support the discriminatory acts themselves but you're supporting the freedom to discriminate on those traits.
I support a freedom of speech, for example, that allows for flag-burning. I don't support flag-burning itself but I necessarily support one's freedom to burn the flag.
That's not using prejudicial language, it's just being frank.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostWell, yes ... if you're supporting a "simple freedom of association" that allows discrimination on the basis of race, gender or orientation then, by necessity, you're supporting a freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender or orientation. You may not support the discriminatory acts themselves but you're supporting the freedom to discriminate on those traits.
I support a freedom of speech, for example, that allows for flag-burning. I don't support flag-burning itself but I necessarily support one's freedom to burn the flag.
That's not using prejudicial language, it's just being frank.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostSimilarly, if you support anti-discrimination laws then you support government-forced labor. That's not a misuse of language, as you seem to have implied, it is, as you say, just being frank."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostThat's a misuse of language in the sense that the latter does not follow from the former by logical necessity. It's contingent on your definition of "government-forced labor" and, when you get right down into how that term is being defined, very few people would maintain that the "force" brought to bear by anti-discrimination law is unnecessary or improper.
So on my part, I'm using the transitive property to make clear a support for the freedom to discriminate — and that's not something you can disagree with if you, in fact, support a freedom to discriminate. On your part, you're using a term that has an emotive effect only so long as it's not specified exactly what you're meaning by it. Because if "government-forced labor" means selling your wares to the public without discrimination rather than, say, internment camps, not very many people are going to find that accusation compelling.
Btw, I don't really care if you want to call it freedom to discriminate. I just wanted to point out the uncharitable nature of it.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostAre you saying that the government requiring business owners, by law, to provide services to people they don't want to provide services to (and then fining them huge amounts if they don't comply) is not force?
Btw, I don't really care if you want to call it freedom to discriminate. I just wanted to point out the uncharitable nature of it.
Yes, it's force. As all government action is force. The problem is that you're looking at the phrase "government-forced labor" without really drilling down what you mean by the word; you're allowing its emotive effect to carry the strongest connotation.
I can "force" my kid to eat his vegetables by reminding him that the deal for dinner is that he has to eat all his vegetables as part of getting dinner. I can "force" my kid to clean his room by establishing that a failure to do so will result in a time out or lost privileges. I can "force" my kid to work in the coal mine for eight hours a day by dragging him to the mine elevator and tossing him in, picking up his wages from yesterday on my way out the door. All are examples of force: only one would be considered inappropriate.
So you've got to define what you mean by "force" and what scope you're using the term for. If when using the term "government-forced labor," you're being clear that you mean "businesses who offer goods and services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of race/gender/orientation/etc." then that's fine. It's just that when you're frank about how you're using the term, not a whole lot of people are going to find that use of "force" shocking or even inappropriate."I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostAre you saying that the government requiring business owners, by law, to provide services to people they don't want to provide services to (and then fining them huge amounts if they don't comply) is not force?Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sam View PostIt's hardly uncharitable to say that one is supporting the freedom to discriminate on the basis of race, gender, or orientation when the person is necessarily doing just that. If you're looking for the blow to be softened, I'd suggest that may indicate some level of discomfort with the reality of your position. It would be uncharitable to say that you're supporting discrimination by supporting the freedom to discriminate. I haven't done that.
Yes, it's force. As all government action is force. The problem is that you're looking at the phrase "government-forced labor" without really drilling down what you mean by the word; you're allowing its emotive effect to carry the strongest connotation.
I can "force" my kid to eat his vegetables by reminding him that the deal for dinner is that he has to eat all his vegetables as part of getting dinner. I can "force" my kid to clean his room by establishing that a failure to do so will result in a time out or lost privileges. I can "force" my kid to work in the coal mine for eight hours a day by dragging him to the mine elevator and tossing him in, picking up his wages from yesterday on my way out the door. All are examples of force: only one would be considered inappropriate.
So you've got to define what you mean by "force" and what scope you're using the term for. If when using the term "government-forced labor," you're being clear that you mean "businesses who offer goods and services to the public cannot discriminate on the basis of race/gender/orientation/etc." then that's fine. It's just that when you're frank about how you're using the term, not a whole lot of people are going to find that use of "force" shocking or even inappropriate.
As for the second point...don't have much else to say. I take a pretty dim view of government coercion on pretty much any issue, so there's no ground that either of us will gain by continuing.
But thank you for admitting that it's government force. For some reason, a lot of liberals are extremely averse to admitting that very simple fact.I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Zymologist View PostI take a pretty dim view of government coercion on pretty much any issue, so there's no ground that either of us will gain by continuing.
Law is coercion by threat of force, and actual force when deemed fit.
As to forced labour, there is conscription, or what you Yankees call the draft.Last edited by Paprika; 04-29-2015, 01:30 PM.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Today, 03:49 PM
|
2 responses
16 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 04:40 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:42 AM
|
17 responses
115 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 12:04 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 10:24 AM
|
5 responses
62 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 03:22 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, Yesterday, 10:22 AM
|
17 responses
97 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
![]()
by Terraceth
Today, 04:22 PM
|
||
Started by VonTastrophe, 06-27-2024, 01:08 PM
|
51 responses
302 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 10:03 AM
|
Comment